Anyone moonlight as an Expert Witness?

[Tim]

“Rather the jurors should have medical knowledge. Medical decision making is often far too complex for a lay jury to understand the nuances.”

Peer Review Committee? Haha!
Actually, list of 5, strike 2 taking turns. Present you case and defense. Anything from dismissed to the maximum allowed. Option to report to the state licensing board with slap on the wrist to revocation.
The goal is proper liability and prevent malpractice.

[SValleyMD]

I had to laugh at panscans “dangerous doctor list”

Let’s see how that goes. I love residents.

It did remind me when I was a naive new doc and I actually wrote down all the crazy stuff I saw from my partners as I though they were all idiots and felt I needed to record it..

I then realize there will soon be a new crop of docs who think I’m a complete idiot.. and that mistakes can happen to anyone.

As long as u aren’t the one running the dept “bad docs” can be a good thing. It keeps admin focused on them. As long as I’m seen as “better/safer” then hopefully they get fired before me.

[Zaphod]

White.Beard.Doc wrote:

I am not talking about the big miss of a mass on chest CT.  That family deserves compensation.

I am talking about the patient who arrives to the hospital with severe sepsis, gets fluid resuscitation and broad spectrum antibiotics, but the attorney gets an expert to say that the extra 30 minutes to do this or that made the difference between life and death.  In some of the counties near where I practice, the jury just looks and sees, “Rich doctor, poor plaintiff/family, so sympathetic, just give them the money.”

Click to expand...

Luckily, even though a horrendous experience overall and crappy, juries seem to do a decent job of doing the right thing. Doctors win upwards of 80% of cases that go to trial. Even horrific ones. Malpractice is pretty egregious a standard, and rightly so, there are many unknowns in this gig and frankly little that we know for sure would have made a difference and docs love to speculate their theories, many on the witness stand unfortunately. Doctors arent careful enough about the implications of what they say or the true imprecision in much of our work to be perfectly honest. I've seen malpractice thrown around these forums somewhat wantonly, with little to zip info, there should be a bit more respect about the whole thing.

I actually just saw a ct scan from a very prestigious university medical center near me where they happened to miss a ginormous fungating breast cancer that was obvious to a janitor walking by the reading room, all because it wasnt in the area the scan was ordered for. These things indeed happen. And it likely wont change her outcomes in the least. Terrible miss, yes, material to her outcome, etc...nope.

[EntrepreneurMD]

https://new.guidepointglobaladvisors.com/apply/expert-witness?k=3GgMKfGceWeQShMRDR741tfS8jEXmRl

[The White Coat Investor]

Here are a couple of experiences for reference.

https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/medical-expert-witness/

https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/7-physician-side-hustles/

[Brains428]

I'm going to talk to someone about potentially doing this tomorrow. It was a word of mouth referral. The attorney I'll be speaking to typically represents the plaintiff. Did anyone feel odd representing the plaintiff's side to the case?

I read the thread and the linked articles. Any specific questions I should ask? Is money appropriate to discuss on an initial evaluation? Given that it would be my first case, does that mean I should expect less pay?

[CordMcNally]

I'm going to talk to someone about potentially doing this tomorrow. It was a word of mouth referral. The attorney I'll be speaking to typically represents the plaintiff. Did anyone feel odd representing the plaintiff's side to the case?

I read the thread and the linked articles. Any specific questions I should ask? Is money appropriate to discuss on an initial evaluation? Given that it would be my first case, does that mean I should expect less pay?

I would be fairly cautious and do a lot of thinking about being on the plaintiff's side.

[Brains428]

I would be fairly cautious and do a lot of thinking about being on the plaintiff's side.

Can you expand on this? You can feel free to DM it to me. I really want honest opinions about it.

This isn't something I sought out, so I'm just going to take the call as a feeler tomorrow. No real commitment, yet.

[CordMcNally]

Can you expand on this? You can feel free to DM it to me. I really want honest opinions about it.

This isn't something I sought out, so I'm just going to take the call as a feeler tomorrow. No real commitment, yet.

Nothing secret about it. You'll definitely be judged within your specialty and location, especially if it's a small specialty. It's just a reputation you want to think long and hard about before you get it (for better or worse).

[WorkforFIRE]

You’re not on the plaintiff side or the defendants side. You are there to provide your expert opinion with the information provided. Doesn’t matter if that benefits the plaintiff or defendant. Use your expertise to provide an expert opinion.

[CordMcNally]

You’re not on the plaintiff side or the defendants side. You are there to provide your expert opinion with the information provided. Doesn’t matter if that benefits the plaintiff or defendant. Use your expertise to provide an expert opinion.

You'll be working for the plaintiff or defendant so you will be on one side or the other. You generally won't take a case unless you agree with the side you'll be working for.

[WorkforFIRE]

You'll be working for the plaintiff or defendant so you will be on one side or the other. You generally won't take a case unless you agree with the side you'll be working for.

That sounds like a conflict of interest.

[CordMcNally]

That sounds like a conflict of interest.

How do you think the process works? The plaintiff's attorney will try to find expert witnesses that agree with them and the defendant's attorney will do the same. Why would a plaintiff's or defendant's attorney hire somebody that is going to ruin their case?

[WorkforFIRE]

How do you think the process works? The plaintiff's attorney will try to find expert witnesses that agree with them and the defendant's attorney will do the same. Why would a plaintiff's or defendant's attorney hire somebody that is going to ruin their case?

I do my fair share of providing my expert opinion. And my stance doesn’t change. I won’t be swayed to cater my opinion on whoever pays me. I’ll provide my opinion based on my expertise regardless of who that ends up benefiting.
with that said, 95%+ of the time, it ends up siding with the defendant. But I can understand what you’re saying. If my opinion ended up siding with the plaintiff more often, my volume might decrease.

[CordMcNally]

I do my fair share of providing my expert opinion. And my stance doesn’t change. I won’t be swayed to cater my opinion on whoever pays me. I’ll provide my opinion based on my expertise regardless of who that ends up benefiting.
with that said, 95%+ of the time, it ends up siding with the defendant. But I can understand what you’re saying. If my opinion ended up siding with the plaintiff more often, my volume might decrease.

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying but I'm guessing whoever is hiring you is the one with who you're agreeing with. If you're being hired by a side with which your expert opinion is contrary to their stance because that would be incredibly interesting and seems like that attorney would be out of work quickly.